Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Galleries NEW FAQ Contact About Impressum
It is currently Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:09 am
Recently the board software has been updated and there are some known bugs/failures:
- Avatars are currently not being displayed ✔ FIXED
- Tapatalk connection is currently broken ✔ FIXED
- Avatars cannot be uploaded ✔ FIXED

Please note that we will soon do some changes in WW board template design in case to get a fully mobile/desktop responsiveness board!
If you find more errors please post it here: http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=139062


All times are UTC+01:00





Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 292 posts ]  Go to page Previous 115 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:03 am
Posts: 620
Location: nyc
I think because drag decreases substantially at slower speeds and so does resistance up front. Thats why it matters almost not at all climbing due to such slow speeds where weight matters more. It matters less though I do not mean to say not at all, just less as you slow down to below 20 from reading I've done.

_________________
My wallet is the lightest thing on my bike.


Top
   
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:17 am 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:36 pm
Posts: 827
"It matters less though I do not mean to say not at all, just less as you slow down to below 20 from reading I've done."

gitsome wrote:
but if you average 20-25 over distance it seems the aerodynamics are meaningless



So what is it, meaningless or it matters less? Which one are you going to go with. Many of your posts today seem to be flip flopping on what you are trying to say. There is much data supporting that aero still matters even if it is 'only' 20-25 mph over a distance. Aero even matters when climbing (as you have to go down the other side).


gitsome wrote:
Thats why it matters almost not at all climbing due to such slow speeds where weight matters more.


You need to read Cervelo's "Col de la Tipping Point". For a pro that tipping point is 8% (where weight starts trumping aero, anything less and aero wins). For an average (250W) rider it is 5%.

http://www.cervelo.com/en/engineering/thinking-and-processes/weight-vs-aero.html

Why can't you have aero and light together?


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:03 am
Posts: 620
Location: nyc
Meaningless.. I should have said Less Meaningful going to almost not meaningful at all below 20. OK? Something like that.

_________________
My wallet is the lightest thing on my bike.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:03 am
Posts: 620
Location: nyc
And yes, I said climbing, I did not say descending, obviously descending matters again, my point was slower speeds in ascent. Please do not put words in my mouth as so many others seem to do on WW these days.

_________________
My wallet is the lightest thing on my bike.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 5:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:36 pm
Posts: 827
This question keeps popping up in threads on here over the years when a new aero frame is released. I know DJ has asked it several times. Specialized just did a test. Not a 100% apples to apples but close. Makes sense as we know tube shape is more important than tube size in terms of aero. Enjoy.


http://youtu.be/XE_GKePa3CQ


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 5:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:42 am
Posts: 55
Location: Arizona
Watched this the other day and I agree it wasn't too surprising. I was certainly hoping for a miracle when I clicked on it to justify my next bike being a classic shaped steel or titanium bike.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 9:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:08 am
Posts: 2291
Location: Pedal Square
Interesting, thought it would be less. Something like a Colnago C59 must be way worse then. Does anyone know if those quickie aero tests are just head-on, or are the results combined/weighed over different yaw angles?

_________________
Bikes: Raw Ti, 650b flatbar CX


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:56 am
Posts: 397
They should have tested this one (1982 Panasonic Aero)
http://panasonicbikemuseum.info/1981-pa ... 6000-aero/


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:52 am 
Offline
in the industry
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:45 pm
Posts: 2900
Location: London, UK
So they compare a Venge, which is designed to be as aero as possible, with a regular round tubed frame from the 1980's? Pointless exercise IMO as they are comparing apples to oranges. Far more relevant would be to compare it to a frame built from aero tubing in the 80's such as a Cinelli Laser Strada.
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Posts: 8233
Location: Geelong
I disagree and think it gave a great present-day comparison of what you gain (or lose) in an aero frame (which isn't the top of the 'aero tree' either) versus a standard round tube offering.

As I am sure there are plenty more riders tossing up between an aero frame or a standard frame as opposed to a Venge or a Cinelli Laser Strada.

_________________
http://www.nicksquillari.com.au


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:10 pm
Posts: 509
Good video.

For completeness, and to understand the interplay of variables, I would like to see the old wheels used as the reference set also.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:19 pm
Posts: 661
The thing that is missed the most in a wind tunnel
Are all the small accelerations to cover moves and close gaps during a road race and even casual group rides. Weight, esp. Rotational weight matters way more when giving a little kick to move up a bike length or two in a group.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 1:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:57 pm
Posts: 4279
Location: Vicenza
Tinea Pedis wrote:
I disagree and think it gave a great present-day comparison of what you gain (or lose) in an aero frame (which isn't the top of the 'aero tree' either) versus a standard round tube offering.

As I am sure there are plenty more riders tossing up between an aero frame or a standard frame as opposed to a Venge or a Cinelli Laser Strada.


I would add aero sloping frame vs aero no-sloping frame.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:54 pm
Posts: 395
Location: Haines, AK - Temporarily
mjduct wrote:
Weight, esp. Rotational weight matters way more when giving a little kick to move up a bike length or two in a group.


Not really:
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Why_Whee ... _2106.html

Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Posts: 3239
Location: On the bike
ultimobici wrote:
So they compare a Venge, which is designed to be as aero as possible, with a regular round tubed frame from the 1980's? Pointless exercise IMO as they are comparing apples to oranges. Far more relevant would be to compare it to a frame built from aero tubing in the 80's such as a Cinelli Laser Strada.



I disagree. It was a great comparison. On the internet when aero is mentioned and a discussion starts, someone always mentions old school steel frame with small diameter tubes and how they wonder how that would compare against a modern carbon aero frame. Well, Specialized did a test and tried to compare as best they could. It is an apples to apples comparison in terms of the question being answered: small diameter steel vs modern aero carbon frame. Will finally put that response to rest as it has always been replied with tube shape matters more than tube size.

_________________
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."


Top
   
Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:12 pm 


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 292 posts ]  Go to page Previous 115 16 17 18 19 20 Next

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. aero handlebars vs aero wheels vs aero frame

in Road

spectastic

7

1796

Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:34 pm

RyanH View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. new bike obsession, aero quality of non-aero frames (Super S

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Road

tacostand

17

3177

Fri Sep 02, 2016 2:37 am

justkeepedaling View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Attachment(s) Question to the aero gurus - "non aero" frame vs Cervelo S5 frame / fork / seatpost

[ Go to page: 1 2 3 4 5 ]

in Road

mbrider

61

3237

Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:45 pm

fa63 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Nike Wing Sunglasses....$1200 to be more aero and look even faster!!!

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Road

mile2424

19

1798

Sat Aug 27, 2016 12:31 am

AJS914 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Aero+ Caliper Brakes VS Non Aero + Disc Brake Road Bikes

in Road

Jmdesignz2

11

2162

Mon Sep 19, 2016 4:08 am

spdntrxi View the latest post


All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LionelB, MSNbot Media and 37 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited